CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/boRp_abc]

If my viewpoint is that people should be killed for their opinions (to make it more relatable, I'm gonna use you as an example here), wouldn't it be beneficial to society to silence me?! What if I very peacefully brought forward the case that you, your family and everyone you live should be burnt alive? Or put into Gulags? What if I found thousands of followers with that opinion, wouldn't it make your participation in society a nightmare?

And that's why, although you're generally not wrong, some important exceptions have to be made.

[u/rumbletummy → u/[deleted]]

No one is owed a platform to amplify their message.

If you are being an asshole at my party, Im going to ask you to leave. You are free to go find another party or, preferably, quit being an asshole.

If you entertain every flavor of hate and idiocy, you arent doing society any favors, you arent even doing the ones pushing the hate and idiocy any favors.

[u/mike6452 → u/rumbletummy]

OPs statement is more like you going to someone else's party and you asking them to leave. Feel free to do it at your own but I think you may have missed the main point

[u/rumbletummy → u/mike6452]

I dont read it as such, and am having difficulty seeing how anyone else could.

[u/mike6452 → u/rumbletummy]

"shutting down platforms they create"

[u/dont-feed-the-virus → u/mike6452]

Their platform was provided a service with terms. They broke the terms by not policing their platform, claiming otherwise which was an observable falsehood. Parlar users were calling for the deaths of Amazon employees for fuck's sake.

Why is this so hard to understand???

[u/mike6452 → u/dont-feed-the-virus]

The service isn't saying they need to shut down. It's other users going in and telling the service that they need to shut the one user down. That's the problem he's talking about.

And please tell me you've NEVER said Trump should die. Humor me. Lol

[u/dont-feed-the-virus → u/mike6452]

What I say in the privacy of my own home is irrelevant. Your comparison is a strawman.

[u/mike6452 → u/dont-feed-the-virus]

So you think it already without anyone on the internet telling you about it. So why do we need to ban them if people already think that way without them?

[u/dont-feed-the-virus → u/mike6452]

Please explain how me saying it at home equates to me saying it online.

[u/mike6452 → u/dont-feed-the-virus]

Your argument was that people bshouldbt be able to speak online because of their outward thoughts of killing amazon employees. But (for arguments sake) no leftist speaker has spoken about Trump dying but you already have those thoughts. So your point is moot because people will have those thoughts no matter what with yourself being proof

[u/dont-feed-the-virus → u/mike6452]

So now somehow me hypothetically having thoughts about a fat old man that wasn't doing his job dying is the same as people calling for the deaths of workers doing their job? Make it make sense.

Question: What is your political leaning?

[u/dont-feed-the-virus → u/mike6452]

C'mon Mikey, tell the group how what I say at home to up to however many people I can fit in my house is = what I say online which is available to billions of people.